California Budget Blues: Jerry Brown’s May Revise

May 15, 2013 1 Comment

It’s hard to believe what’s going on in Sacramento.

  • More Revenue. We just got more revenue than the state of California expected – this should lighten up the austerity plans, no?
  • More Billionaires. The economy must be improving. We have more billionaires than ever in California. Forbes came out with their annual list and California has 96 billionaires, up from 94 last year, and 85 the year before that. The billionaires’ total wealth is $360 billion, up 16% from last year. A small portion of that could make up for past budget cuts that affected everyone in one way or another. For years taxes on the wealthy have been lowered, and their wealth has gone up – that’s how it works. (See
    http://laurawellssolutions.com/2012/12/05/tax-the-rich-to-reduce-the-disparity/
    )
  • More Taxes from the Rich? Maybe revenue increased because the super-rich paid a bit more in taxes, eh? Could have been even more if Jerry Brown had gone with the real Millionaires Tax, before he watered it down for Prop 30, and added regressive sales tax. People preferred the real Millionaires Tax. (See the behind-the-scenes story in
    http://laurawellssolutions.com/2013/01/01/no-corporate-money-vs-jerry-brown/
    )
  • More Prisoners. By a lot, we have more people incarcerated in California than in any country in the world. Many should be in treatment, not jail, and many are in private out-of-state prisons. Jerry Brown recently filed a last minute, court-ordered plan to reduce the state’s prison population, and did not include a single sentencing reform.
  • Less Healthcare; More Health Insurance. Why did Sacramento pass single-payer healthcare when Republican Schwarzenegger was Governor and not pass it now, when Democrat Jerry Brown is Governor? Obamacare will not provide the kind of healthcare provided by all other wealthy, industrialized countries, but it will subsidize health insurance corporations.

Why is all this – and more – happening when the Democratic Party holds every single statewide office and now has 2/3 majorities in both houses of the legislature? Isn’t it the political party that is supposed to be the “people’s party”?

Worse than I Thought

I have to confess, it’s worse than I thought it would be, and I of all people should have known better. After all, I ran against Jerry Brown in 2010, as the Green Party candidate for Governor.

In the race for Governor in 2010, I decided to focus on two signature economic proposals rather than focus on a “laundry list” – a list that includes such vital issues as education, environment, health, housing, jobs, justice, and peace. I made that decision because I expected the huge, corporate-controlled media would give very little attention to candidates who are not from the huge, corporate-controlled political parties. (I admit that at times I refer to them as Titanic Parties. Let’s face it, they’re huge; they’re heading straight for the iceberg; their captains are not turning aside; and passengers came on board because they thought the Titanic would take them where they wanted to go, and on the way they could party!)

I focused primarily on two proposals because I wanted to draw as much attention as I could to the California economy and budget. If the money’s off, it’s all off. The budget needs to be handled well if we are to have hope for all the other areas of life that matter to us.

Two Signature Economic Proposals

My first proposal was and still is to create a State Bank for California that will partner with community banks and credit unions; ensure good loans for residents, small business, and students; and enable us to stop throwing public money away in interest. The State Bank and other public banks will invest in California, not Wall Street. (See also my blog
http://laurawellssolutions.com/category/public-banking-state-bank/
 and see
http://www.publicbankinginstitute.org/
.)

My second proposal is summarized in my valentine to Prop 13, “Honey, I love you, but you’ve got to change!” I proposed that we keep the good (keep people in their homes, including our seniors) and fix the bad. The bad has two parts: the property tax imbalance, that now favors huge corporations, and the 2/3 super-majority required to raise revenue, that now favors the richest of the rich individuals and corporations. That last bad part – about the super-majorities – was where I was naïve.

Toward Solutions: Champions in the Halls of Government

I am no longer focused on Prop 13′s super-majority rules. Even with 2/3 majorities politicians in Sacramento are bent on developing excuses rather than solutions. We are focused on replacing our elected officials.

We have all seen candidates who say one thing and then get into office and do something else altogether. Then they run again – and expect our votes – on the grounds that at least they’re better than the candidate from the other huge political party.

Corporate money is a way to distinguish between those candidates who will be on the side of the 1% and candidates who will champion the causes of the 99% that elected them. The No Corporate Money Campaign is strategizing to show how candidates and voters – who are not controlled by corporations – can win.

We are aligned with efforts to change the laws governing our democracy, but not waiting for that. We need champions in Sacramento and in other halls of our government in order to change the laws. Champions of people’s causes have been elected with great results as to the environment, banking, education, equality and so on, in places as diverse as Iceland, Germany, Quebec, many Latin American countries, and Richmond, California. We can continue that trend.

There are solutions. When we use our individual efforts and social movements to promote solutions, we need to elect people into the government who will help us move them forward, not stand in our way and block our solutions.

That’s why a group of community and political activists are focusing our efforts on creating a powerful No Corporate Money Campaign. The Campaign consists of two simple but powerful elements that work together. Candidates sign a pledge to take no corporate money, and voters declare our intention to vote for candidates who take no corporate money.

And now, I’m going to post this blog and get back to work on one piece of that campaign, a book with the newly revised working title, Signs of Hope: You, Corporations and Government. 

Thanks for all you do, and for staying with it!

Filed under Tax The Rich Tagged with , , , , ,

Ten Things I Learned from Hugo Chávez

March 7, 2013 18 Comments

I like to gather signs of hope that things really can change for the better in a major way. With that in mind, I keep the website venezuelanalysis.com as my home page. On the afternoon of March 5, 2013, I had to catch my breath when I saw the headline, “President Hugo Chávez has Died.” Almost ten years ago, inspired by the documentary The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, I started learning as much as I could about Venezuela and Hugo Chávez. I participated in “reality tours” and political delegations to show solidarity, and to bring the lessons back home. Here are some things I learned.

1. Keep Smiling. Hugo Chávez’ charisma and popularity was based on his speaking to – and acting on – the needs of the people, who could see he was one of them. Also, Chávez had a huge smile he gave generously, lifting spirits in the struggle. Sure, we can’t smile all the time, and Hugo Chávez didn’t either, but I learned that when we do smile, we give a renewable source of energy that can light up the place.

2. 1% Lies are Enormous. The 1%, along with their military-industrial-media complex, uses the approach “by any lies necessary” to counter the power of good examples that can inspire hope and action in the rest of us. As a result of these enormous lies, Americans who know almost nothing about current affairs in Latin America believe the lie that Hugo Chávez was a dictator. In fact, Chávez was a democratically elected president, elected by a wide margin after running as an outsider in Venezuela’s fixed two-party system. His first acts as president were to wipe out illiteracy, establish healthcare clinics in the poorest barrios, and create a brand new constitution based on citizen input and participatory democracy. I wish our democratically elected presidents and governors would strive to empower us with better education, healthcare for all, and new rules to improve our democracy.

3. Attacks by the 1% can Strengthen the 99%. Whether you call it the backfire effect or political jujitsu, one of the greatest lessons I’ve learned from Venezuela is this: the force the opposition uses against us, the people, can be used as a catalyst that helps us increase our power. Here are three examples during Chávez’ presidency. The 2002 military coup was turned away not by Chávez himself – he was in captivity on an island – but by a mass protest of people in the capital city of Caracas. That military coup backfired and so the 1% tried an economic coup later that year, with an oil company lockout. Although nationalized almost 30 years earlier, the oil company had benefited only the ruling oligarchy while the vast majority of people lived in poverty. In a stunning backfire despite great odds, workers and the Chávez government learned to run the oil company, and in effect, the old 1% managers fired themselves and the people got control. The third attempt was in 2004 when the 1% used the recall powers in the new constitution. In this electoral battle, Chávez supporters organized barrios and pueblos across the nation to get out the “NO!” vote, and the recall was defeated. As a result, the 1% became weaker; and the 99% became stronger and more organized. Backfire!

4. Learn from History. Hugo Chávez taught history in the military, and in the process learned what had worked and what had not worked in people’s struggles in Latin America and beyond. He  studied nonviolent movements by reading Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, and Gandhi, and he was influenced by liberation theology. A new approach to land redistribution was something I learned about firsthand on the Day of Indigenous Resistance (formerly known as Columbus Day). On that day, our Global Exchange reality tour reached a remote area of Venezuela via three different aircraft: presidential jet (without the president on board), prop plane, and helicopter. Chávez arrived shortly after we did, and was greeted by hundreds of campesinos and our group of a dozen “estadounidenses” (U.S. Americans). It was apparent that he had learned from history: if you simply redistribute land in order to solve the vast inequality of wealth, people might not be able to hang onto the land. Instead, Venezuela’s new plans included these elements: distribute unused government land first before unused private land; give farmers access to credit, equipment, and agricultural training to lay the groundwork for success; prioritize farming cooperatives to help ensure stability over time; and grant temporary use of land leading to permanent ownership after the farmers succeeded in making the land productive. On the return trip to Caracas, Chávez was aboard the presidential jet. There he was, big as life, beaming at everyone.

5. Empower your People, and your Peers, Connect with Everyone. Chávez said that to get people out of poverty, “Give them power.” He also knew it was important to empower peers – heads-of-state across the continent and even across the world. He learned from history that a single country, attempting to strengthen its own sovereignty at the expense of the interests of a super-power, is in much better position when in partnership with other countries also standing strong. Chávez worked diligently with other South and Central American presidents to fulfill liberator Simon Bolivar’s dream of a united Latin America. They built alliances for trade, finance, telecommunications, culture, and governance. Chávez’ approach seemed to be: connect with everyone, even those who oppose you, because there may be a time when their rarely given support could help your mission. When Colombia acted in ways that harmed the region, Chávez initiated meetings to address the matter, and to maintain a working relationship for future times when Colombia would stand with Latin America. Chávez also connected with other heads-of-state around the world, including those in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), and he was willing to meet with American presidents from Clinton, to Bush, to Obama.

6. Missions, not Wars. Ten years ago if anyone had told me I would have great enthusiasm for a place where these elements combined forces: government, military, religion, and the oil industry, I would have said, “No way!” But there I was, participating in political delegations to Venezuela as often as my budget would allow. The Bolivarian “missions” were programs focused on literacy, healthcare, food, housing, agriculture, cooperatives, and much more. It struck me that the word “mission” made sense, since it was used in all of those arenas: government, military, industry, and religion. I thought, the U.S. doesn’t use “mission” like that, and so what word do we use? Then I realized, it’s “war” – the war on drugs, war on poverty, war on terror. After the Venezuelan oligarchy running the national oil company essentially fired themselves, those earnings were available to benefit all of Venezuela, and the power of the missions increased. The strength of Chávez’ presidency, whether in the streets or in foreign policy, was based on the Bolivarian missions, not on military might.

7. Ideas not Ideology. The goal of the Bolivarian Revolution is to create “socialism of the 21st century.” Chávez and the people at the base (“el base” is the Spanish term for grassroots) aimed to implement that through participatory democracy, operating in what they referred to as “el proceso” rather than by a fixed, top-down plan laid out for the next 5 or 10 years. Significantly, the oil industry had already been nationalized in 1976 but the profits benefited very few Venezuelans. When Chávez became president, his administration did not immediately implement programs to redistribute land and nationalize the means of production across the board. Instead, Venezuela moved steadily toward nationalizing industries when it became possible; toward expropriating abandoned factories for workers to start up production; and toward creating cooperatives – while prioritizing industries essential for all Venezuelans and helping the new entities to succeed by giving them government contracts.

8. Paso a Paso, Step by Step, It All Contributes. In political delegations with the Task Force on the Americas, other participants and I often met with activists who had been organizing for 40 years or more. We asked them how on earth they managed to keep going all that time when the system seemed irretrievably locked into a two-party system with an entrenched oligarchy. The activists smiled and shrugged, “Hay que luchar, paso a paso” – “You have to struggle, step by step.” During all my travels to see firsthand what was happening in Latin America, I gained a new appreciation of history and how you’re never sure what’s going to happen, but when you are committed you can keep moving forward. It becomes clear that everything we’re doing now will be of use once there’s a crack in the seemingly impenetrable system. That crack happened in Venezuela; Chávez was elected; and the country began to turn away from concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the 1%, toward a sharing of wealth and power in the hands of the 99%.

9. Sometimes Loudmouths are Necessary. If someone had given me the decision about whether or not Chávez should refer to President Bush as the “devil” in a United Nations speech, I probably would have said “no,” but I would have been wrong. I’ll never forget that particular U.N. speech, or the news clip I saw online of a Fox TV reporter saying, “I don’t know what was more disturbing, his blasphemous remarks…. or the amount of applause he got when he finished.” Considering the problems Latin America faced as the “backyard” of the United States, the biggest economic and military super-power the world has ever known, I could see the need to have someone courageous enough to roar, so that others could at least peep.

10. You Don’t have to be Perfect. There were any number of things Chavez said and actions he tried that could be criticized as going too far or not far enough, and yet he never stopped moving toward his mission of a better world. Of the many things Hugo Chávez tried in his life, the one that catapulted him into folk hero status in his country in 1992 was his 90-second speech in which he took responsibility for a military coup attempt that had failed, “por ahora” – for now. The next day the words “por ahora” were written on walls all over the place. Later Hugo Chávez would spend time with Fidel Castro, and together they would agree that the way to go in Latin America was no longer armed revolution. Venezuela is changing through a combination of elements: a strong social movement with people taking to the streets; an electoral revolution including former non-voters like the young and the impoverished taking to the voting booths; local movements building healthier communities; and an unwavering commitment to create a better world.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , ,

Jerry Brown’s Budget: We Can Do Much Better!

January 11, 2013 Leave a comment

An Important Preamble

We as the human species really have one job on our to-do list, one responsibility, and that is to take care of the next generation. This means not just our kids or kids of people close to us, but the kids of the species. Everything else is secondary. Fortunately, we can live happy and meaningful lives while we’re handling this basic responsibility. As a matter of fact, that might be the only way we’ll be happy! As current times show, when we aren’t doing such a great job taking care of the next generation, we are likely to be leading lives filled with fear, resentment, excuses, and scapegoating.

We in California have power in this quest to set things up well for future generations across the planet. We have been looked up to in the past, not just for Hollywood but also for our education system. There is no reason our school system should be deteriorating. The current budget proposal is hailed by its author Governor Brown as turning a corner toward balanced budgets and better funding for education, but before we say, “Hail to the chief!” let’s take a moment to think about what we really want in California, and see how far we are from having that.

“We want him to win big!”

When I ran as the Green Party candidate for Governor in 2010, Jerry Brown won, easily, by 13 points. A friend asked his fellow voters, since there was no worry about Brown winning, would they please vote Green if that’s where their values really were – social justice, nonviolence, healthy environment, grassroots democracy and candidates who walk their talk by taking no corporate money. People responded, “We know Brown is going to win, but we want him to win big!” Same thing happened with Obama in 2012. People said, “We know Obama is going to win California, but we want him to win the popular vote in the country.”

“Who Are Our Champions?”

OK, so Brown won in 2010 and Obama won in 2012. They won, and won big, and yet why aren’t we happy with them? It reminds me of a plaintive question from the back of the room at a California Budget Project conference, “Who are our champions?” Apparently our “winners” are not our “champions.” They do not champion our causes. Why?

Pressure and Support

There is a basic approach in negotiating an agreement, whether it’s among peers, between parent and child, or between voters and candidates. Don’t “support” them by giving them everything they want and then expect they’ll do what you want! (Can I get a “Duh!”)

Elected officials have lots of pressures to deal with, and if voters vote for them no matter what they do (excusing their past behavior by saying at least they’re better than the other one), the elected officials would bow not to the voters, but to the pressures of the corporations who fund their political parties and campaigns. The people who decide how to allocate their candidate-purchasing funds do not say, “Oh well, you tried!” They will lower your pay. With voters, our elected officials just devise, issue by issue, a way to tell us what a great job they’re doing for us! They will remind us that, “Politics is the art of the possible,” and imply that, unfortunately, what we want and need for the future generations and ourselves is just not possible in this political climate. “This is the best that could possibly have been done!”

Jerry Brown vs. California

This leads us to Jerry “Look at what a great job I’m doing!” Brown. He is without question the most powerful political figure in California, so much so that it’s hard to figure who comes in second. And although he has responded to pressure, he had the power to do much more than he did. Last year he brought down the real Millionaires Tax and then began using the same name for his watered-down Prop 30. That was the focus of my blog “No Corporate Money vs. Jerry Brown”
http://laurawellssolutions.com/2013/01/01/no-corporate-money-vs-jerry-brown/

The annual Forbes list of the richest people in America should come out in the next few months, and we’ll see if the progression continues. In 2011 the state had 85 billionaires and I put that on a sign and carried it to rallies until the new list came out in 2012 and I had to revise the sign to read 94 billionaires. The economy was improving, for a few! (See also blog 
http://laurawellssolutions.com/2012/12/05/tax-the-rich-to-reduce-the-disparity/
)

That’s where the money is – in the hands of the super-rich and their corporations. Jerry Brown is calling it a success that he allowed a tiny chip to be taken out of the huge cuts that he and his predecessor Schwarzenegger presided over during the past several years. There are lots of taxes that could be implemented; lots of proposals are in the pipeline; voters just gave the Jerry Brown and his Titanic party super-majorities in both houses of the legislature; and so what will our Gatekeeper-in-Chief allow to progress?

What can we do about it?

We have lots of power, and nobody knows that better than the 1%. There’s a lot we can do, and one of them is to join with the No Corporate Money campaign that you will hear more about – from grassroots sources not mainstream media – in the coming months. When we have 1 or 2 or a majority in our governmental bodies, No Corporate Money candidates will champion regular people and our next generation without having to toe the line and bow to pressure from corporations. Which reminds me of a third blog for you to check out,
http://laurawellssolutions.com/2012/10/19/no-corporate-money-campaign/

There are many other things that we can do, and that we are doing. We won’t stop strategizing for change, organizing, using the power we already have, using our wallets according to our values, taking to the streets, taking to the voting booth, whatever it takes to take care of the next generation, and ourselves in the process. And we know we can lead happy and meaningful lives too.

Filed under No Corporate Money Campaign, Tax The Rich Tagged with , , ,

“No Corporate Money” vs. Jerry Brown

January 1, 2013 2 Comments

The year 2013 is beginning, and the new “No Corporate Money” campaign is beginning as well, aiming for the California primary on June 3, 2014. We’re planning to win.

We have not yet decided whether to run a candidate for Governor. Jerry Brown will undoubtedly run and win in 2014. Although many Californians do know the behind-the-scenes Jerry, many do not.

We will run to win in other offices. We will ensure that the people of California can pressure Jerry Brown in a way his cronies never will.

Jerry Brown is the most powerful political figure in California, and it’s hard to even think of who comes in second. If Brown used his power on the side of regular people – the 99% – he would have a much better record than he has. Even his claims of victories ring hollow when you look behind the curtain and see how much better the victories could have been.

The good news is that when you look behind the curtain you also see: people can pressure Jerry Brown!

The Tax-The-Rich movement moved Brown. In 2011 his tax idea was to continue the Schwarzenegger taxes, including a 1 percent sales tax increase among other regressive taxes. In early 2012 Brown’s first tax initiative had a smaller sales tax increase of 1/2 percent and some faintly progressive income tax hikes. By March 2012, Brown was forced to change his initiative, further reducing the sales tax component to 1/4 percent (should have been zero) and proposing somewhat more progressive income tax hikes.

Jerry Brown’s problem with his first tax initiative was that some unions did not toe the line with him, notably the California Federation of Teachers (CFT). They gathered signatures for an opposing tax initiative, the Millionaires Tax, which raised more money, increased income tax rates on brackets over a million dollars, and had no sales tax increase. The CFT was working with the Tax-The-Rich movement that included Occupy activists especially Occupy Education students who had just completed the March 1st to 5th actions across the state; democratize-the-unions activists; organizations like California Calls, ACCE and the Courage Campaign; and independent political parties like the Green Party and Peace and Freedom.

Polls showed that the real Millionaires Tax was beating Jerry Brown’s tax measure. Jerry Brown decided to compromise. He called in the union leaders, weakened their proposal, beefed his up a little, and halved the sales tax increase again, to 1/4 percent. And although it no longer fit for the compromise Proposition 30, he kept the name “Millionaires Tax.”

California can pressure Sacramento by essentially electing the cabinet. The “No Corporate Money” campaign will run candidates in the executive seats around the Governor, especially seats without incumbents: Secretary of State, Treasurer, and Controller. We will run for legislative seats and local offices too.

We want to win; we plan to win, and we can win. California now has a unique chance with the new Top Two primary system. Historically “Top Two” favored incumbents and highly funded (meaning corporate-funded) candidates; ironically it also affords voters an opportunity to crack this system. Any voter can vote for any candidate regardless of political party, and so toss the much-promoted idea of “spoiling elections” out of your head. Your vote for a “No Corporate Money” candidate does not help the candidate you dislike the most.

We – the people – can win.

Filed under No Corporate Money Campaign, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , ,

Tax The Rich to Reduce the Disparity

December 5, 2012 3 Comments

Emmanuel Saez, professor of economics at UC Berkeley, has done in-depth studies of income disparity between the 1% and the 99%, across the world and across a century of U.S. data. At a public lecture last night, he presented many enlightening graphs – see bibliography in this blog and check out his articles.

One graph showed the relationship between Top 1% Income Shares and Top Marginal Tax Rates. The income and tax lines mirrored each other, showing that when the tax rates go down, the 1% shares of income go up, and vice versa.

Significantly, when a young audience member asked whether the current Democratic federal income tax rate proposals would be better than the Republican tax rate proposals regarding the disparity, his answer was “It would not make much difference.” Saez said the debate needs to be between the 35% top rate of today, and the 70% top rate of the 1970s, not between 35% and 39.6%.

And yet the media calls the Republicans and Democrats polarized on this issue?! Gee, who owns the media, and speaking of income, where do media outlets get their income? Our dollar bills for the newspaper, or their advertisers? And why isn’t Emmanuel Saez the expert they turn to when they present perspectives? In the media’s own terms Emmanuel Saez would be a great person to interview on TV: fresh perspective, concise, young, tall, dark, and handsome; he even has a French accent. More importantly, not in media terms but in the terms of the 99% and our future generations, he has the facts that show the Occupy and Tax The Rich movements are heading in the right direction.

What can we do? Spread the word. California showed  it’s ready to listen. We voted to increase taxes on the richest a tiny bit via Prop 30. True, it was a watered-down version of the real Millionaires Tax that voters preferred over Jerry Brown’s initial tax proposition. The good news is that the Tax The Rich movement – which includes Occupy, student movements, and California Federation of Teachers – forced Governor Brown to increase the tax rates in the compromise that became Prop 30.

Saez said, “The public will favor more progressive taxation only if it is convinced that top income gains are detrimental to the 99%.” What can we do? Spread the word and keep up the pressure.

BLOG BIBLIOGRAPHY


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Saez


http://emlab.berkeley.edu/~saez/

The following are PDFs:

Striking it Richer: The Evolution of Top Incomes in the United States” (March 2, 2012)

“Optimal Taxation of Top Labor Incomes: A Tale of Three Elasticities” with Thomas Piketty and Stefanie Stantcheva, NBER Working Paper No. 17616, November 2011, revised October 2012

GRAPH: Black line is top 1% income, red line is top tax rates. If it’s hard to read, see page 40 of “Optimal Taxation” article above (page 42 of the PDF).

Picture 1

Filed under Tax The Rich, Uncategorized Tagged with , , ,

How we vote: Ranked Choice Voting and “Top Two”

November 4, 2012 1 Comment

I had an email conversation with Joe, a dancer friend of mine, and I’m sharing part of it in this blog. It’s about the voting systems showing up on our ballots in the Bay Area. We’ve had some election changes in recent years, and so our November ballot shows evidence of two systems: Ranked Choice Voting and “Top Two” primary.

Ranked Choice Voting, also known as IRV/Instant Runoff Voting, takes place in one election — the November “general” election — the election in which people are more likely to vote. San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, and San Leandro in the Bay Area use this voting system for municipal offices.

In RCV voters rank their choices 1-2-3 so that the winner actually gets a majority of votes in one election. If a voter’s first choice is out of the running, then their 2nd choice gets picked up and so on until someone gets a majority of 50%+1.  The goal is that you can vote for the candidate you prefer (what a concept!) and then put as your 2nd and 3rd choices the next best and the lesser-of-two-evil candidates. The question of “spoiler” is thrown out the window. Vote for who you want without regard to “who-can-win”, a label which unfortunately is determined by money from the 1% and their corporations.

The other system is the “Top Two” Primary and it’s the reason there are only two people on the November ballot for state offices this election. The Top Two primary system still uses two elections rather than one. In the June primary, a lower turnout election (only 30% this time!), the field gets whittled down to two. Top Two primaries have historically favored incumbents and highly funded candidates because of name recognition. They win the top two spots in the primary and all others (like Greens) are cut out of the general election in November. That’s what happened in June 2012, the first Top Two primary in California.

This can change for the better, however, since in “Top Two” any voter can vote for any candidate.  In the future the top two could be a Green or other no-corporate-money candidate and a Titanic Party candidate. And the no-corporate-money candidate would have a good chance of winning! In California, we might have an even better chance if there were just a Green/no-corporate-money candidate and a Republican rather than a Democrat.

That’s looking ahead to 2014. As for 2012, the only chance you have to vote Green is in some local races and for president — so take advantage of that!

Here’s to building strength in the “No Corporate Money” Campaign.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , ,

“No Corporate Money” Campaign

October 19, 2012 5 Comments

How California can beat the 1% – at their own game

California has a unique chance to shift the balance of power in our state. The 1% and their corporations now control our budgets and economy, schools and education, police and justice, and so much more, because they control the people who get elected into our government. This can change, and California can inspire the rest of the country. We have some good examples to inspire us.

Dramatic change has occurred in places as far away as South America and as close as Richmond, a city in the S.F. Bay Area. People combined strong social movements with strong electoral movements. When people in South America – especially the young and impoverished – began taking to the streets and voting in much greater numbers than ever before, the 1% lost big. The disparity of wealth began to decrease, and education, healthcare, and people’s participation in their governments began to improve.

Closer to home, Richmond now has a mayor and city council members who stand with the 99%. Community activists ten years ago were tired of running into a brick wall at city hall, and organized to combine activism with elections (see RichmondProgressiveAlliance.net). Greens, Democrats, and others ran for office, all agreeing to take no corporate money, and they began to win. Chevron, the largest corporation in California, put a million dollars into three races in 2010, and lost, lost, and lost. The “no corporate money” candidates won.

In California the rules of the game for state elections have now changed, seemingly for the worse, but inadvertently the new rules provide an opening for a backfire on the 1%.

In the “Top Two” primary system we now use for state offices, any voter can vote for any candidate regardless of political party. Only the top two candidates appear on the November ballot, even if they are from the same party. Historically, this system favored incumbents and highly funded candidates, and that’s exactly what happened in the first Top Two Primary in California in June 2012. But Top Two can backfire on the 1% when we create a critical mass of people who declare their intention to vote for candidates who take no corporate money.

You can help grow this movement. Join the No Corporate Money Campaign.

(1) Fill out the declaration, and mail it to Laura Wells, P.O. Box 10181, Oakland, CA 94610.

(2) Or, email your responses to the three checkboxes with your other information on the form to info@laurawells.org

(3) Spread the word and gather declarations!

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __  __ __ __ __ __ __

I DECLARE MY INTENTION TO ….         

[ ]  Participate in SOCIAL MOVEMENTS to ensure positive change

[ ] VOTE in upcoming elections, including the June 3, 2014 primary

[ ] Vote for candidates for state offices who DO NOT ACCEPT CORPORATE MONEY

Name ________________________________________________

VOLUNTEER? __________________

E-mail __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

Phone (_____) ______-___________

Street Address  __________________________________________

City__________________________________________________

ZIP_________________________

Filed under No Corporate Money Campaign, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , ,

State Bank for California: Invest in California, not Wall Street

October 19, 2012 Leave a comment

In 2011, four years after Ellen Brown wrote Web of Debt: The Shocking Truth About Our Money System and How We Can Break Free, the Public Banking Institute, with Brown as the chair, was founded to provide support and leadership for the growing movement which she and her book engendered.

Since then, more than 20 states and many counties and cities are considering creating their own banks. Public banks partner with local, independent banks and credit unions, providing good loans to homeowners, small businesses, and students, while folding the interest back into the local economy, not Wall Street. People are asking, “Why throw money away by paying 5% interest to big banks for loans, while receiving less than 1% in interest from big banks for funds deposited?”

North Dakota is a good example. In 1919 the farmers got tired of losing their farms to out-of-state bankers; so, they created the Bank of North Dakota. Today, 93 years later, North Dakota has a budget surplus instead of a budget deficit, and more community banks per capita than any other state.

Here’s how you can get started establishing a public bank in your area. The steps include researching how public banking works, linking with allies, identifying champions, and finding potential sources of capitalization for the bank.

Research can start at
http://www.publicbankinginstitute.org/
. You will find a wealth of information, including FAQs and articles on public banking, a newsletter sign-up, and examples from around the world.

Allies are an important early requirement. Creating and implementing plans together provide great motivation to learn as much as possible in preparation for upcoming meetings and presentations.

Champions will come from many areas: community bankers, elected officials, candidates, and social activists from many related movements. In the process of finding allies, you will discover who is aligned with the big banks. (See related “No Corporate Money” article on reverse.)

Capitalization sources for initial bank reserves are varied and may come from a pool of public funds available for a particular purpose (see example at
http://bankonsonoma.com
). Use the Internet or public officials to discover funds on the balance sheets of your local jurisdictions that are going unused. Research the idea of using eminent domain in this era of foreclosures.

Keep abreast of the information and opportunities provided by the Public Banking Institute. It is inspiring to be involved with people across the country who, even when they are faced with setbacks and obstacles, are moving ahead on this solution that is both positive and possible.

North Dakota has a publicly owned bank. What city, county, or state will be next?

Filed under Public Banking / State Bank, Uncategorized Tagged with , , ,

I know YOU know we have a choice!

July 17, 2012 Leave a comment

This blog is a letter to a friend of mine who sent an email about the lesser of two evils. The letter is followed by 3 postscripts including a link to “Why Barack Obama is the More Effective Evil.”

Dear Steve – I know YOU know we have a choice!

Even Californians (including many intelligent, active, well-meaning people)
who believe that the two-or-is-it-one-party-system can be “spoiled”
(despite the fact that Gore in 2000 actually won Florida and the presidency) …
EVEN those Californians can vote for anybody they want
since they are in a “safe state” (“safe” according to the “spoiler” theory),
ESPECIALLY if they notice that by November,
neither Romney nor Obama is even bothering to come to CA except to fund-raise.

Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala are great candidates. Jill and the Green team have been doing an amazing job energizing this campaign, and hitting the mark to get federal matching funds! Even MSM mainstream media has mentioned it, despite how MSM is funded.

For real, positive change, the time is now.
VOTE GREEN EVERY CHANCE YOU GET!
Or vote Peace and Freedom,
Or write in “Democracy” or “Occupy!”

Love,
Laura

BLOG P.S. For the record, and for readers of all unsafe states (“unsafe” particularly by the standards of health, wealth and justice), who feel they have to vote Republican-or-Democratic-or-not-at-all, I believe you too can vote for what you want: government not controlled by the military-industrial-pharmaceutical-prison-insurance-congressional-media complex. This means Green, Peace and Freedom, and some independents. If they are not on the ballot, write in “Democracy” or “Occupy!”

BLOG P.P.S.   See “Why Barack Obama is the More Effective Evil” by Glen Ford of the Black Agenda Project.

BLOG P.P.P.S.  Steve’s sweet response was, “I’m going to write in Laura Wells. Good seeing you today. It’s nice to see the age of the pamphleteer is not gone, and that people still know how to communicate with words on paper.” Steve was referring to seeing me handing out my leaflet to the audience of the San Francisco Mime Troupe. My goal is to be a “pamphleteer” at all or almost all SFMT shows.

 

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , ,

Response to “Reduce spending and don’t tax the rich!”

May 25, 2012 Leave a comment

I have talked with many people who have concerns about state spending and taxing the rich. This blog is a response to them, and a reply to a comment Vibora Volando posted to my Open Letter to Governor Jerry Brown (click here to see the initial blog and comments).

VIBORA VOLANDO: When will you sympathizers get it through your heads. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Democratic legislators have taken us down the road to perdition because they don’t know how to balance a checkbook, or insist on a $100bln railroad to nowhere, when there isn’t a dollar on hand we haven’t borrowed. It is sickening. We have been promised too much “heroin” in the form of government welfare and finally someone is at least bringing it to the press. California’s education system is fiscally unsustainable due to waste, giveaways, bloated salaries and pensions. Yet the lazy solution is to raise more money to throw at the problem rather than find real long term solutions. And this thing about the rich paying their fair share. LOL. Take away the rich and Cali goes down the tubes. Then those nice new “temporary” taxes will be re-calibrated to slip down to ever lower income brackets until things blow up. It is laughable that people are all energized about taking more money from the wealthy when they contribute virtually nothing in comparison. Extortion cloaked in the faux fur of democracy.

MY RESPONSE:

First, I agree that a high-speed rail system is not what we need right now. That’s like frosting on the cake, when we don’t have the cake, and not even the main dish. We need good transportation systems like regional public transit that is frequent and affordable; that’s what encourages people to use it. We also need roads with potholes filled and parking available; that helps neighborhood businesses.

I also agree that we should not be borrowing, and throwing money away in interest. The state pays out about 5% interest while it has billions of dollars sitting in Wall Street banks earning less than 1% interest. That does not make sense. North Dakota is the only state without a budget deficit since the global meltdown, and it is also the only state with a State Bank. See
http://publicbankinginstitute.org/
  I think you’ll like the idea.

As to the disparity of wealth, it’s a question of scale. It has gone too far. What was called rich used to be seven times richer than the rest of us; now it’s 300 times or 1000 times. California’s 94 billionaires could solve the budget gap without affecting their or their children’s quality of life. To build up wealth of one billion dollars, you would have to earn $1,000,000 a year for 1,000 years. Or if you only worked 50 years full-time, you would have to earn $10,000 an hour and tighten your belt – only spend $800,000 a year during those fifty years. That’s a billion dollars. Who needs it? Who is worth $10,000 an hour at age 21 if someone else is worth $8?

All this, all the money they’ve accumulated, would not be a problem if it didn’t bring with it the closing down of schools, libraries, parks and so many things that have now given our next generation fewer educational and economic opportunities than the prior generation. And their elders are suffering too.

For decades we have been reducing taxes on the rich, and if it actually did create jobs and help the whole state, we would not have the unemployment rates we have.

This is real: we are now in the situation where the lower income families pay a higher percentage of their income in state and local taxes than the richest 1%. It has to do with taxes other than income tax; taxes like sales tax, property taxes, and fees fall harder on lower incomes.  My guess is that you and your family and friends, like the vast majority of Californians, are on the wrong side of that balance of tax fairness; my guess is that you pay at a higher rate than the richest of the rich.

The super-rich used to be taxed more and could still get wealthy. They actually get a lot of financial benefit from the government. Corporations for example, in addition to having departments that ensure they pay as little tax as possible (their spending side), have departments dedicated to getting government contracts and subsidies, not to mention the Wall Street bailouts (their revenue side). And as to helping the state, scandals like those of Enron and the savings and loans cost our state billions. And then, in an amazing example of weapons of mass distraction, immigration gets blamed for economic problems.

If the super-rich move away from this wonderful state, then I’m sorry for them because California is truly special.

We won’t stop fighting to balance the budget and reduce the disparity of wealth. We want to increase the chances for the rest of us to have good jobs and good lives.

Filed under Tax The Rich, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 848 other followers